6.  The applicants are:
(1) Ms Rimma Arapkhanova, born in 1967;
(2) Mr Zelimkhan Arapkhanov, born in 1982;
(3) Ms Ayshat Arapkhanova, born in 1933;
(4) Ms Malika Arapkhanova, born in 1993;
(5) Ms Romana Arapkhanova, born in 2000;
(6) Mr Amirkhan Arapkhanov, born in 1992;
(7) Mr Aslan Arapkhanov, born in 1997;
(8) Mr Mukharbek Arapkhanov, born in 1999;
(9) Ms Diana Arapkhanova, born in 1994; and
(10) Mr Adam Arapkhanov, born in 1996.
They live in the village of Galashki, Sunzhenskiy District, in the Republic of Ingushetia.
7.  The first applicant was married to Mr Beslan Arapkhanov, born in 1966. They are the parents of the fourth to tenth applicants. The third applicant is the mother of Beslan Arapkhanov; the second applicant is his cousin.
8.  At the material time Beslan Arapkhanov lived with his wife and children, the first and fourth to tenth applicants, at 1 Partizanskaya Street in the village of Galashki. The second applicant lived in a neighbouring house at 2 Partizanskaya Street. The third applicant lived at 18 Shosseynaya Street in Galashki.
9.  On the night of 19 July 2004 Beslan Arapkhanov, his wife and their children were at their family home.
10.  At about 4 a.m. on 20 July 2004 around ten men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns burst into Beslan Arapkhanov’s house. Although the men did not identify themselves, the applicants believed that they were Russian servicemen.
11.  The servicemen grabbed Beslan Arapkhanov, handcuffed him, forced him onto the floor and hit him with a machine gun butt. Beslan Arapkhanov started bleeding. In the meantime a serviceman examined his identity papers.
12.  The servicemen searched the house without producing a warrant. Eventually they found an assault rifle hidden in a couch. According to the applicants, Beslan Arapkhanov kept the weapon to take revenge on Chechen rebel fighters for the death of his brother.
13.  The servicemen locked the first applicant and her children in one of the rooms and dragged Beslan Arapkhanov to the courtyard. Some three minutes later the first applicant heard a burst of machine gun fire.
14.  Fifteen or twenty minutes later a man wearing civilian clothes entered the house and unlocked the room in which the first applicant and her children were locked. He introduced himself as Mr K., an investigator from the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Republic of Ingushetia (“the Ingushetia FSB”). Mr K. was accompanied by two unmasked soldiers; he said that they were attesting witnesses and that he was going to search the house. The first applicant told him that the servicemen had already seized the assault rifle and that there was nothing else to search for.
15.  Mr K. showed the first applicant a warrant authorising a search of the house owned by a certain Mr Kh. at 7 Partizanskaya Street in Galashki. The first applicant told him that their address was 1 Partizanskaya Street and that her husband’s last name was Arapkhanov, not Kh. The servicemen shouted abuse at her. Mr K. made some notes, which the first applicant assumed were for a search report.
16.  The servicemen took the first applicant to the courtyard where she saw her husband lying still and bloodied on the ground. The servicemen did not allow her to approach Beslan Arapkhanov and ordered her to dig up any hidden weapons. She said that there were no weapons but obeyed and began digging. After a while the servicemen started digging as well. Having found nothing, they took the first applicant back inside.
17.  Mr K. asked the first applicant to sign the search report, which she did. Then some of the servicemen presented a black plastic bag containing a grenade which they said they had found in the courtyard.
18.  The servicemen locked the first applicant and her children in one of the rooms and left. At about 9 a.m. local police officers arrived and released them.
19.  Beslan Arapkhanov was buried later that day.
(b) The second applicant’s account of the events
20.  On the night of 19 July 2004 the second applicant was asleep in his house at 2 Partizanskaya Street.
21.  At about 4.30 a.m. on 20 July 2004 the second applicant was woken up by the sound of gunshots. He went outside and saw several vehicles parked at the corner of the street and a group of armed and masked men standing in front of Beslan Arapkhanov’s house. He also glimpsed a man lying on the ground in Beslan Arapkhanov’s courtyard.
22.  The armed men beckoned the second applicant and asked for his identity papers, which he produced. They then asked him who lived at 1 Partizanskaya Street; he replied that it was his cousin. The men reported his words to someone via a portable radio transmitter. Then they beat and kicked the second applicant, demanding that he disclose the whereabouts of rebel fighters.
23.  The armed men then took the second applicant to a Gazel vehicle parked nearby, where a man in civilian clothes told him that he was in charge of the other men and asked him how Beslan Arapkhanov had obtained the rifle. The second applicant replied that he knew nothing about that. The man continued to question him about his cousin and rebel fighters; some forty or fifty minutes later he sent the second applicant home.
24.  On returning home, the second applicant found two men wearing masks and armed with machine guns in his courtyard. One of them hit him in the face with a machine gun butt so that the second applicant lost consciousness. When he regained his senses, he found himself lying on the ground in a pool of blood.
25.  Later the same day the second applicant was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with cerebral bruising and numerous abrasions on his face and neck. He was discharged from hospital on 10 August 2004.
(c) The search report
26.  According to the search report drawn up on 20 July 2004 and submitted by the applicants, the search at 1 Partizanskaya Street, Galashki, had been authorised by a warrant dated 20 July 2004. No further details concerning the warrant were given.
27.  The search was carried out by the investigator of the Ingushetia FSB, Lieutenant K., between 5.45 and 6.55 a.m. on 20 July 2004 in the presence of the first applicant and two attesting witnesses, Mr G. and Mr E., servicemen of military unit no. 3810 of Zheleznovodsk.
28.  The report states that the aim of the search was to discover hidden weapons and ammunition and that an assault rifle magazine without cartridges, a holster and an F-1 grenade were eventually found.
29.  On 19 July 2004 investigators in charge of a criminal case concerning a number of rebel attacks committed on the territory of Ingushetia obtained intelligence information that insurgents were probably hiding at 1 Partizanskaya Street in Galashki and were storing armaments there.
30.  On 20 July 2004 the North Caucasus Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in case no. 04560060 in relation to unlawful insurgent activities and ordered an urgent search of Beslan Arapkhanov’s house in order to find members of illegal armed groups. Mr K., an investigator of the Ingushetia FSB, was assigned to carry out the search.
31.  At about 4 a.m. on 20 July 2004 Mr K., accompanied by servicemen of a special unit of the Federal Security Service of Russia (“the Russian FSB”), arrived in Galashki.
32.  Facing a serious risk of armed resistance, the Russian FSB servicemen surrounded Beslan Arapkhanov’s house.
33.  Some of the Russian FSB servicemen entered the house, arrested Beslan Arapkhanov and handcuffed him. Later they took the handcuffs off as they needed the arrestee to unlock all the doors in the house.
34.  While the servicemen were searching the storage room, Beslan Arapkhanov suddenly took a loaded Kalashnikov rifle from its hiding place, kicked out a piece of plywood covering a window and jumped out of the window. He fired a shot at the servicemen in the backyard. Since there was a risk that he might continue firing, some of the servicemen returned fire and killed him.
35.  The second applicant stepped out of a neighbouring house and started walking towards the scene of the incident. The servicemen ordered him not to move and to show that he was not carrying any arms, but he disobeyed. Some of them hit the second applicant several times with machine gun butts to preclude him from acting unlawfully. As a result the second applicant sustained cerebral concussion and a wound to the forehead that qualified as minor bodily injuries.
36.  In the course of the search of Beslan Arapkhanov’s house the servicemen seized a Kalashnikov rifle inscribed with the number 6682, a pouch containing five cartridges, sixty-nine 7.62 mm calibre bullets and F‑1 and RGD-5 grenades.
37.  During the search the first applicant explained to the FSB servicemen that her husband had kept the rifle at home in order to take revenge on rebels who had killed his brother.
38.  On 21 July 2004 the Nazran District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia declared the search of 20 July 2004 lawful.
39.  Shortly after the killing of Beslan Arapkhanov the applicants began to complain about it to various State agencies and officials, such as the Russian State Duma, the Russian President, the Head of the Russian FSB, the President of the Republic of Ingushetia and prosecutors’ offices at different levels.
40.  On 21 July 2004 employees of the Office of the President and of the Government of the Republic of Ingushetia visited the first applicant. They told her that her husband had been killed by mistake and gave her 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB), apparently as an allowance for the loss of the breadwinner. A few days later several employees of the Ingushetian Government again visited the first applicant, examined her household and promised her financial support; it is unclear whether the first applicant received it.
41.  On 24 July 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the prosecutor’s office of the Sunzhenskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”).
42.  On 28 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into Beslan Arapkhanov’s killing under Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code (“murder”). The prosecutor’s decision stated that, while carrying out operational and search measures, servicemen of the Ingushetian FSB had used firearms against Beslan Arapkhanov, who had died of his wounds on the spot. On the same date the prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that an investigation had been opened into the killing of her husband.
43.  At the end of July and beginning of August 2004 the investigators questioned several inhabitants of the village of Galashki as witnesses in the case concerning Beslan Arapkhanov’s death.
44.  On 29 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office ordered that Beslan Arapkhanov’s corpse be exhumed and an autopsy carried out.
45.  Between 29 July and 27 August 2004 an expert from the Forensics Bureau of the Republic of Ingushetia conducted the autopsy and drew up a post-mortem report. According to the report, Beslan Arapkhanov’s death was caused by numerous gunshot wounds to the head, body and extremities. The expert also found bruises on the corpse’s wrists, possibly caused by handcuffs.
46.  On 30 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 04600044 in connection with her husband’s death.
47.  On the same date the first applicant was questioned. She described the events of 20 July 2004. She stated, in particular, that Mr K. had shown her a search warrant in the name of Mr Kh., their neighbour, and his address at 7 Partizanskaya Street, Galashki. The first applicant had objected, stating that the warrant had not been drawn up in their family name or their address but the servicemen had shouted abuse at her.
48.  On an unspecified date the second applicant was granted victim status in case no. 04600044.
49.  On 10 August 2004 the Forensics Bureau of the Republic of Ingushetia issued a medical death certificate in respect of Beslan Arapkhanov, according to which the death had been caused by fractures to the skull combined with brain injuries and a perforating gunshot wound to the head.
50.  On 25 August 2004 the first and second applicants asked the district prosecutor’s office to provide them with copies of documents from the case file, but their request does not appear to have been granted. On 20 September 2004 the first applicant sent a similar request to the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia.
51.  On 23 September 2004 case no. 04600044 was transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit (“the circuit prosecutor’s office”). On the same date the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia notified the first applicant accordingly.
52.  On 24 September 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Ingushetia provided the applicant with copies of certain documents from the case file but refused to give her copies of the entire file.
53.  On 29 October 2004 the circuit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that case no. 04600044 had been transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”).
54.  On 16 November 2004 the SRJI, acting on behalf of the first applicant, asked the district prosecutor’s office to update them on progress in the investigation.
55.  On 17 December 2004 an FSB officer informed the first applicant that her complaint to the head of the Russian FSB had been forwarded to the circuit prosecutor’s office.
56.  On 26 December 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 04062 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”).
57.  On 22 January 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office took up the investigation in case no. 04600040 (it appears that there was a clerical error in the case file number, which should read “04600044”) and notified the first applicant accordingly. It appears that at some point they changed the case number.
58.  On 25 January 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that they had received the complaint that she had addressed to the Russian President and that the investigation into her husband’s death was pending.
59.  On 1 February 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first and second applicants that the preliminary investigation time-limit in case no. 34/01/0010-05 had been extended until 28 March 2005.
60.  On 2 and 7 February 2005 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaints to the unit prosecutor’s office.
61.  On 22 February 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant that the investigation was under way.
62.  On 23 May 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office transferred the investigation file in case no. 34/01/0010-05 to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 and notified the first and second applicants accordingly.
63.  On 22 June 2005 the SRJI asked the unit prosecutor’s office to update them on progress in the investigation in case no. 34/01/0010-05. On 26 August 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office replied that they had transferred the case to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102.
64.  On 24 October 2005 the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia notified the first applicant that on 23 October 2004 criminal case no. 04600044 had been transferred to the North-Caucasus Military Circuit.
65.  On 3 December 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the case had been transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102.
66.  On 7 July 2006 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia informed a member of parliament of Ingushetia, inter alia, that the criminal investigation into the killing of Beslan Arapkhanov had been terminated on 30 May 2005.
67.  On 12 April 2007 the UGA prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the criminal proceedings against the two servicemen of the Ingushetia FSB, Mr P. and Mr V., had been terminated by the unit prosecutor’s office on 7 December 2006 for lack of corpus delicti and that there were no grounds for quashing that decision.
68.  On 10 May 2007 the SRJI asked the unit prosecutor’s office to provide the first applicant with a copy of the decision of 7 December 2006 and to allow her to study the case file.
69.  On an unspecified date the first applicant challenged the decision of the unit prosecutor’s office of 7 December 2006 before the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia.
70.  On 16 July 2007 the Sunzhenskiy District Court decided to transfer the case to a military court, pursuant to the rules on the jurisdiction of the relevant subject matter.
71.  On 9 January 2008 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI that the first applicant could study the case file in the premises of the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 29483.
72.  On 28 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Beslan Arapkhanov’s killing under Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code.
73.  On 22 January of an unspecified year the investigation was transferred to the unit prosecutor’s office.
74.  A number of witnesses were questioned in the course of the investigation. Some of them were servicemen of the Russian FSB, who took part in the arrest of Beslan Arapkhanov. For their own protection and that of their families, their real names were not disclosed by the Government.
75.  On an unspecified date Mr I. (it is unclear whether the Government provided his real name or an alias) was questioned and stated that on 20 July 2004 he had been in command of a special unit of the Russian FSB that had ensured the security of investigators searching Beslan Arapkhanov’s house. As it was thought likely that insurgents would be hiding in the house, the special unit servicemen entered the house first and arrested Beslan Arapkhanov. While in the storage room, Beslan Arapkhanov suddenly took a loaded Kalashnikov rifle from its hiding place, kicked out a piece of plywood covering a window and jumped out of the window. He fired a shot at two servicemen who were standing in the backyard. They fired back and killed Beslan Arapkhanov.
76.  The two servicemen who used firearms against Beslan Arapkhanov belonged to a special unit of the Russian FSB (military unit no. 35690). Their code names were “Ruby” and “Uran”. The investigation could not question them because they had died in the course of a special anti-terrorist operation on 3 September 2004.
77.  All the other servicemen of the special unit of the Russian FSB who were present during the search of 20 July 2004 were questioned on unspecified dates. They confirmed that Beslan Arapkhanov had showed armed resistance during his arrest and that the firearms had been used against him lawfully.
78.  On an unspecified date the corpse of Beslan Arapkhanov was exhumed. A post-mortem examination established that the death had been caused by gunshot wounds. There were also bruises on each of Beslan Arapkhanov’s wrists, as well as a wound measuring five centimetres by two centimetres on his left wrist, probably caused by handcuffs.
79.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned a deputy head of the Government of Ingushetia, who submitted that on 21 July 2004 he and two other officials had visited the first applicant and given her a funeral subsidy from the Government of Ingushetia in the amount of RUB 100,000.
80.  On 7 December 2006 the unit prosecutor’s office terminated the criminal investigation for lack of evidence of a crime, as the servicemen had lawfully used firearms during the arrest to prevent Beslan Arapkhanov from injuring their fellow servicemen.
81.  On 3 December 2007 the deputy of the Main Military Prosecutor of Russia quashed the decision of 7 December 2006.
82.  On an unspecified date Mr K., former investigator of the Ingushetia FSB, was questioned and stated that there had been no breaches of statutory procedure in the course of the search of 20 July 2004.
83.  The investigation into Beslan Arapkhanov’s killing was reopened.
84.  A complaint lodged by the first applicant about the unlawful termination of the criminal proceedings was examined on an unspecified date by the Nalchik Garrison Military Court and dismissed as unsubstantiated.
85.  Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any materials from the case file concerning the killing of Beslan Arapkhanov. Relying on information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would breach Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings.
86.  On 22 July 2004 the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office that he had been severely beaten by a group of servicemen armed with machine guns. He requested that those responsible be punished.
87.  On 19 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office asked Sunzhenskiy District Hospital to produce the second applicant’s medical record, which contained information on the injuries he had sustained on 20 July 2004. They commented that the request was “in connection with the investigation in criminal case no. 04600044 concerning B[eslan] Arapkhanov’s death and the infliction of bodily injuries on Z[elimkhan] Arapkhanov”.
88.  On 23 July 2004 the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office that federal servicemen had inflicted bodily injuries on him.
89.  The second applicant was granted victim status and questioned.
90.  In order to determine the degree of severity of the bodily injuries, the investigators ordered a forensic expert examination of the second applicant. The experts established that upon admission to hospital the second applicant had been diagnosed with cerebral bruising and numerous abrasions on the face and abdomen. The cerebral bruising had not been confirmed by objective clinical neurological data and therefore could not be subjected to forensic assessment. A scar on the right side of the forehead was assessed as a minor bodily injury.
91.  It is not clear whether a separate set of criminal proceedings was instituted in respect of the injuries sustained by the second applicant or whether the investigation into the incident formed part of the investigation in case no. 04600044. Nor is it clear whether any progress was made in the investigation of the beating of the second applicant.
92.  Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any materials from the case file concerning the bodily injuries sustained by the second applicant.